This is not a good look for Kacific. Tonga already had a contract with them to implement satellite internet before the eruption. It seems like their ability to actually deploy their technology was so poor SpaceX can beat them starting from square 1. One of the many ways Starlink will disrupt the best laid plans.
It looks like the contracted amount from Kacific was 1 Gbps and the previous fiber cable was offering 10 Gbps. It doesn't seem implausible that a single prioritized Starlink Premium terminal could deliver at least 1 Gbps and that would be very easy to fly in and setup.
Side note, it's really incredible that an entire island got by on 10 Gbps of bandwidth.
It's only 100k people. I'm sure nobody is able to pull huge bandwidth but even if every man, woman, and child on the island was hammering away at it 24/7, that's 100kbit per person. Slow, but usable.
Not really, you assume that everyone in the world is the same as you. Much of the world is still using pre 4G technology and pipes with cell phones that have 512mb ram and possibly 32gb of memory (Total.)
Then you also have to realize what is the most consumption and usage - unlike most countries it is not streaming in general.
If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is “Go won’t immediately get faster with this release, it will immediately get faster with the next and subsequent releases”. Whether your employer uses generics or not, it’s very likely large parts of the standard library will get rewritten with them soon, and if OP is correct, it will improve the performance greatly of certain operations.
> it’s very likely large parts of the standard library will get rewritten with them soon
It's not. The Go 1 backwards compatibility promise means existing interfaces won't change. Take the Math package for instance: I'm not aware of any planned breaking changes -- if you are, please share. If they were to add support for non-int64 operations, they would likely be separate functions or a new package. This, without sweeping code changes, nothing changes.
The Go team has been discussing converting some functions to generics _if_ they can maintain the compatibility guarantee. Without verifying, I believe this was discussed in Go Time ep 216.
It’s certainly worth evaluating, but if you read the study it says that the risk is 10-20x lower in getting the vaccine vs in getting COVID itself. Assuming you live in a world where COVID is rampant (we do), it sounds like the vaccines are a good call.
From the study "Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40."
The success we’re talking about was an analytical measurement of the antigen response in the body. It wasn’t lack of symptoms which ruled that phase a failure.
That is incorrect, the decision making numbers used to test vaccine effectiveness having nothing to do with lab antigen numbers, they are based on how much symptomatic illness is avoided. All of the results such as as 95%-96% efficacy for Phizer and Moderna and 66% for J&J are based on the % reduction of symptomatic illness only. Not the reduction in actual illness or based on lab tests of antigen response.
I believe you are incorrect. What you say was true for the initial adult trials but many recommendations for boosters and lower age groups have been based on antibody response, not clinical outcomes.
Correct or incorrect is sort of irrelevant, because it's a problem itself if they aren't including severity of symptoms in the study.
If they are ignoring symptoms to approve a vaccine who's primary remaining benefit is ... reducing severity of symptoms ... then how exactly has the trial proved anything?
Since antibodies are no longer a reliable indicator of immunity or of preventing transmission, then reduced severity is the primary remaining benefit.
Ideally they'd be looking at a cumulative risk/prevention assessment, but I don't see how they do that while excluding observed symptoms.
If they are using antibody levels as a proxy for this when they could just ... directly observe symptoms... then there would be a bigger problem with the study than just a failure to show sufficient efficacy.
It's just a fine line between arguing what would justify FDA "approval" vs what merits have changed that actually increase the risk-versus-reward assessment.
Put another way, when the biggest excuse for not getting vaccinated was "it's experimental and not approved", it became a straw-man-esque "gotcha-trap" of a battle to achieve "approval", even though that approval process looked nothing like any before it (no matter how many times "full fda approval" is repeated).
When the metric becomes the goal, it's no longer a metric, and all that.
We get bogged down arguing whether criteria of a definition or standard are being met, while the regulators end up just redefining things.
And we're supposed to pretend the teacher applying a curved grading scale actually represents a difference in the students performance.
I've read that the pfizer study compared rates of positive test cases between the two groups.
BUT, the tests were administered based on self-reported symptoms which were then evaluated by a staff member to decide whether a test was warranted. This absolutely blew my mind.
This kind of avoidable subjective decision making should not be happening in a clinical trial. All participants should have been tested at regular intervals.
Equally... that when they repeat it and get different numbers, the failed trial will be ignored in favor of the passing trial, without first invalidating the previous results[0], and without using any increased burden of proof.
Passed+Failed = "Passed!"
[0] There will be a reason given to ignore that first trial, it just likely won't be a good one.
Setting an appropriate user style using something like Stylus to override it should work. See how this one does it: https://userstyles.world/style/2264/unblock-algoexpert-text-...
If you can't set user styles in your browser, you might not be able to accomplish it, though.
unless the site already did that, so you'll have to out-override them by applying an id to the outer html tag and doing the ol'
#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride#useroverride * {user-select: all !important]
The summary of this thread is that the only complaints anyone has is that it is too hard to get a Model Y or parts for a Model Y, both indicative of just how successful this car is.
My wife and a friend both have cars in the shop after getting hit. No problem with parts. Tesla is practically legendary at this point for having long waits on parts - and that was before the "global supply crises."
They will beat expectations of production. They adjust their lines super quick and almost not affected but shortages.
Their limiting factors are Giga Berlin and Giga Texas that will be live in Jan-Feb. It's an additional million cars a year.
Ah, must have accidentally skipped of that part. Cheers!
For anyone else: “ While STTARS has previously transported Webb components to other NASA or partner facilities primarily by air, the team chose to transport Webb by sea to Kourou due to the logistics of landing at the Cayenne Airport in French Guiana. The 40-mile (65-kilometer) route between the airport and the launch site features seven bridges that STTARS would have been too heavy to cross. In addition, the drive from the Port de Pariacabo to Webb’s launch site is relatively short. In comparison, a drive from the Cayenne Airport to the launch site, factoring in STTARS’ slow speeds and other constraints, would have taken about two days.”
> The rocket had a streak of 82 consecutive successful launches between 9 April 2003 and 12 December 2017.
That's why.
(We also like international cooperation. We build the telescope, ESA chips in with the launcher. Same situation with Orion and the ESA's service module.)
You get an advantage launching closer to the equator. The velocity of the Earth at the equator is higher so less deltaV is required from the rocket itself when compared to launching somewhere closer to the poles.
You get a speed boost the closer you are to the equator and if you want an equatorial orbit you have to spend fuel in orbit to correct down to zero degrees.
It is way cheaper to correct these things on the planet than with bigger rockets.
It’s fantastic. I have never struggled to fill my time, so a world without a formal job just allows me to spend time on what I care about. At the moment about a third of my time is spent working on mechanical projects and cars. Whatever I imagine I can actually work on and build, and whatever skills I lack I have time to learn!
Another third of my time is spent pursuing paragliding. It’s something I found interesting before, but I just never had the flexibility in my life to take more than a week off work. Now I can live in Colombia for a month at a time, both a great environment and change of pace, and a fantastic way to learn.
The rest of my time I work on a little mini startup. It’s different than what I was doing before because it’s decidedly ‘lifestyle’. No VC money. Just building something I find interesting with people I like. If I don’t want to do something, or I don’t have the time, I simply say that! It’s all the fun of building a product and bringing it to the market with a world less stress.
The most important thing to know is: I didn’t plan any of this. I was so burnt out that thinking of anything I wanted to do was challenging. But after six months of cranking on cars and other mundane projects the world opened in front of me, and I realized all those things I loved doing as a child are still with me.
